Thursday, July 2, 2015

Austerity aids who?

...Governments run by people who are either rich or supported by rich, have only the best interest of the rich in their minds...

In my previous post, I had argued that austerity would only lead to further austerity as it shrinks the economy. Keynesian Theory of economics is a classical theory that every student of economics would come across. Then, why are the EU nations and IMF administering the hard-pill of austerity on Greece. Why UK administers austerity when it has only increased poverty? Why is Canada administering austerity, when it claims to be well-off in the media? Why is US administering austerity? Some one should be benefitted by it, right? Who gets benefitted by austerity and who loses?

Runners first

During the European Debt Crisis in the later part of 2008, many European countries assumed the indebtedness of their banks to prevent them from failing. This left many of the European countries in debt to the extent they were not able to pay their debts without assistance from third parties such as EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility), ECB (European Central Bank) and IMF (International Monetary fund). Since many of these organizations require austerity as a part of their bail-out programs, countries are forced to impose austerity measures.

For example, Ireland imposed austerity measures when it assumed the debts of its private sector banks and had to be assisted by the EU and IMF. While Ireland eventually recovered and ended its austerity in the 2015 budget, the impact of austerity was substantial. Property values collapsed making people pay mortgage more than what their property worth. The economy shrunk resulting in widespread employment which rose from 4.2% in 2007 to 14.6% in 2012. Ireland also saw huge emigration with around 34500 people leaving Ireland between 2009 and 2010. However, the impact of these measures were felt most by those who could not bear it.

Similarly, austerity measures imposed by UK due to its bank bail-outs were also affecting the poorest population who could hardly bear the impacts. As of 2014, close to a quarter of the UK population are in poverty. Unemployment rate rose from around 5.7% in 2007 to over 8% in 2012. However, since 2012 unemployment rate has shown gradual decrease. However the austerity was again found to affect the poorest of population.

Though here two countries are taken as an example, we could make a point that the poorest of poor are those who'd be affected the most, the losers to austerity. This is also because the poor are the biggest consumer of public services, which takes the major hit due to spending cuts. If people tend to commit suicide then austerity is effectively eliminating poor instead of poverty.

Winners next

Naturally, those who hold and control government debts gains the most. When the governments bailed the banks, the investors benefitted from the austerity as their assets grew while the poor suffered as it is their jobs and earnings which was taken to pay for bailing out the banks. Naturally, investors and the wealthy were the big winners.

Further, when the governments cuts its services and shrinks its work force, the private sectors see a increase in the supply of labor. Most of these labor could be acquired at low cost, particularly for short-term. Temporary workers are neither paid on par with the permanent workers nor have the benefits of the latter, in many countries. Further, their employees could be forced to put on more hours at work with the threat of lay-off. In other words, austerity helps big corporations and the wealthy to exploit the labor of the poor.

Naturally, the rich-poor divide has grown sharply since 2007 with many billionaires seeing large increase in their wealth.

Conclusion

Clearly, Austerity aids the rich, corporations and the investors...

There are many studies hailing the rich and the reason for the growth of their wealth as due to their wise investments. However, these studies/articles carefully "forget" to mention that poor and middle class don't have enough disposable income to invest, in the first place. Further, while the rich may have their investment knowledge transferred from their parents or bought, the poor and middle class are left in the dark.

Further, I believe the system itself is designed to aid the investors. While I cannot say for every country, I could about India and Canada. In India, the rich has the money to buy the Govt. officials and vital information to make informed decisions on their investment, though illegal. In Canada, the start-up visa program, I believe, was designed with the interest of the investors (venture-capitalists) in mind. For example, it wouldn't include crowd-sourcing opportunities to raise capital. The system provides little opportunities for immigrant researchers for entrepreneurial pursuits though, those pursuits could create more jobs for Canadians... Rich again has an opportunity to get a investor visa or buy a business...

This makes me wonder, if the Governments real intentions are to help its people or only a section of its population. I'm afraid, the Governments run by people who are either rich or supported by rich, have only the best interest of the rich in their minds. However, what I don't understand is why people don't realize this and why they are falling prey to politicians' lies...